Bowyer´s inquest testimony

[MysterySinger]

I can see the thing that looks like it might be a knob. Can't really make out the windows but they could be there. However, now I'm seeing numbers in the photo. Does anyone else see numbers where I've circled in white and what could be the significance of the 2 quite large circular shapes in the boxed area?

[Elamarna]

Dear Packers Stem,

i am not sure why you think the lighting is important, but lets look at the possible sources of light:

Natural light.
while it is unlikely that there was sufficient natural light(given the time of day and the known weather conditions)to take these photographs, due to the fact that these both photos are for photographic purposes "still life" an extremely long exposure cannot be ruled out and could account for the blurring /bunch of bananas in MJK3.
The light does appear to be coming from the general direction of the larger window. however in MJK1 the strongest source appears to be coming from the, front left of the the body, this would not be compatible with light from the window, which should be almost directly from the front

In MJK3 the highlights appear to be coming from the same approximate area as in MJK1.
There does however appear to be other highlights on the table which do not correspond to this.
This problem with natural light has been discussed several times before by various posters including Simon Wood.

Therefore what forms of artificial lighting were available in 1888:

Oxy-hydrogen light had been introduced in 1839, it gave poor results and was little used by the time of the murders.

Battery operated lighting was used to photograph the sewers in Paris, France by Nadar, but was not commonly used.
Electric lighting was mainly confined to studios but was in fact being used in the 1880's. the power often being provided by gas driven dynamos, exposure of 2-3 seconds were possible.

These methods were however unreliable at the time.

Magnesium was the big move forward in flash photography in the second half of the 19th century. The light was produced by burning a wire or strip of magnesium. whilst this was expensive it was portable, exposures did vary considerably and commonly produced grey smoke. none is obvious in either picture but we should not let this rule out its use.

In 1887 Flash powder was introduced, this was a mixture of magnesium powder and Potassium chlorate, it allowed near instant photographs with higher shutter speeds than had been possible before.

It is quite likely that this may have been used for the Millers Court photos .

[Sam Flynn]

However, now I'm seeing numbers in the photo. Does anyone else see numbers where I've circled in white

Almost certainly photographic artefacts, if not pure imagination ("methinks it is like a weasel"). Besides, we have to bear in mind that the subject-matter was a good half-day old by the time the picture was taken; the flesh would have flopped, shrunk and distorted significantly since Kelly's murder. Any vague resemblance to perceived shapes probably owes more to gravity and physiology than to any "message" the killer intended to convey.

[Robert St Devil]

This is how I see MJK3

[Pierre]

This is how I see MJK3

Thanks Robert, a very good illustration of your thinking!

I have been thinking about this and I believe there is a problem - the lack of the 90 degree corner. If the interpretation of the position of the window and door on each side of the corner would be right, the window would (in reality) cut right through the table.

So this should be a more valid interpretation. What do you think?

Regards Pierre

[Elamarna]

Dear Robert,

I am afraid it is no good, People will not see what they don't want to see.
if the light is cutting the table in half so what?
if as you suggest the bed is against the partition, or nearly so then from that angle of the shot the light would appear to cut the table, as in the photo

In reality of course this is due to the angle of the shot, and the strip of light is much nearer to the head of the table than it appears.

one point which does support you is that only 3 explanations make any sense for the light stopping above the table.

1.it is a fault in processing the photo.

2. it is something suspended from the ceiling , illuminated by the light source used, there are other threads and such on site discussing this idea.

3. it is light from the window, where the curtain meets.

it is certainly Not light from the door.

Indeed if we are to accept that this photo is taken when the door is barricaded, then the highlights on the body and table must be from the direction of the windows, As has been previously said a few posts back and in other threads commenting on MJK3, the idea of natural light for this on an overcast day is highly unlikely.

I think you may have a good case here.

[FrankO]

The official inquest papers include Bowyer stating:
"... I pulled the curtain aside and I looked in and saw two lumps of flesh laying on the table ["to be"- deleted] close against the bed, in front of the bed." So, there you have it. When he looked through the window, he saw the table in front of him with the bed behind it.

All the best,
Frank

[Elamarna]

Dear Robert,

I have spent the last few days, looking at as much data as i can on the photos.

The work of Richardh has had a great influence on me.

my view for what it is worth is :

1.MJK1/2 was taken using natural light and was taken from the larger window and was the first picture taken. it is my view that this is the crime scene as first found.

2. The bed and table were moved after the taking of the first photo, there was an attempt to try and retain the relative positions of both to each other, but there was movement of at least a few inches in their relative positions.
The purpose of this may have been to to allow the photographer easier access for MJK3.

3. MJK3 was probably taken with the bed moved, by the police, nearer to the centre of the room, but certainly not as a barricade by the killer.

4. The knob you see is the door knob and thus that area is the right hand side of the door , and not as the OP thinks the wall.

5. Whatever the light strip is, it is not light from the hinged side of the door.
I now believe it is unlikely to be light from the window, which I do however think is in the shot where you think it is.

6. The possibilities for the light strip are: processing effect, something suspended from the ceiling, near the corner of the room and thus out of shot in MJK1/2.

This is a link to richardh work.

https://autumnofterror.wordpress.com/type/video/

the threads discussing this are currently on page 3 of the Mary Kelly threads

regards

[Sam Flynn]

Re the light strip, it's possible to make out some bright, out-of-focus blobs lying beyond it, from which it appears that we are actually looking through a gap of some kind. Whether that gap was caused by a door, a partly-occluding cupboard/cabinet, or the space in a curtain, we are definitely looking through the light strip, rather than at its surface.

[Pierre]

Re the light strip, it's possible to make out some bright, out-of-focus blobs lying beyond it, from which it appears that we are actually looking through a gap of some kind. Whether that gap was caused by a door, a partly-occluding cupboard/cabinet, or the space in a curtain, we are definitely looking through the light strip, rather than at its surface.

Hi Sam,

Yes, I think you are right.

Regards Pierre

[Wickerman]

Re the light strip, it's possible to make out some bright, out-of-focus blobs lying beyond it, from which it appears that we are actually looking through a gap of some kind. Whether that gap was caused by a door, a partly-occluding cupboard/cabinet, or the space in a curtain, we are definitely looking through the light strip, rather than at its surface.

Yes, I think the strip of light is the crack between the door and door post, the hinge side. The door is just open a few degrees.

[Elamarna]

Dear Sam,

This was my view up until earlier today, my view was that you could see a shape through it as you say, and given it did not continue under the table i concluded along with Robert i think that it was light from the window.

However having spent much of the last few days reading the various threads and dissertations on the issue, I noticed Simon Woods Statement that Photoshop appeared to show the strip was in front of the background,
Not having Photoshop I used GIMP which is much the same and got a similar result.
While this is not conclusive it has swayed my view. However i am happy to accept it COULD be from a gap in the curtains. I therefore was remiss in not including it as a possible explanation.

MJK1/2 does fit to both Bowyer's and Phillips's statements.

[Robert]

I have no idea what that strip of light means, but I would like to make the following point :

If what we are looking at in the background is curtain, then where is the pilot coat? I know that Harvey's laundry was dear to her heart and she more than once rattled off a list of it, but surely she didn't manage to get the police to give her the beloved pilot coat while they were actually still working in the room? So why would the police take down the pilot coat? Indeed, where would they put it?

[Elamarna]

Wickerman,

Sorry to disagree with you, however MJK3 does show what appears to be a Door knob to the left of the strip, this would seem to precluded the light being on the hinge side of the Door.
This knob is fairly obvious and has a highlight from the light source, If it is not a door knob, what could it be? it would appear to be the wrong shape and at the wrong height for some kind of clothes hook.

More importantly, the light should be seen under the table top if it is a strip of light from the door. There is space between the body and the table for this to appear but there is nothing.
Whilst of course the door may have been ill fitting , it is unlikely that if light is seen in the top area , there would not be some indication of it in the lower area.
I assume you explain the light stopping some distance above the table, is due you believe to the presence of a hinge?

regards

[Joshua Rogan]

1.MJK1/2 was taken using natural light and was taken from the larger window and was the first picture taken. it is my view that this is the crime scene as first found.

Interestingly, the Telegraph 10th Nov says it was taken through one of the windows (unspecified) which was removed entirely (although other things it says seem inaccurate so not sure if I believe it);

"While this examination was being made a photographer, who, in the meantime, had been sent for, arrived and
TOOK PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE BODY,
the organs, the room, and its contents. Superintendent Arnold then had the door of the room forced."

If true though, it may suggest what the other 'missing' photographs might show.